All Activity

A Friday Hodgepodge 1. In "Analyzing the Hamas Sympathizers," Peter Schwartz explains how altruism -- the idea that we owe relief to the needy regardless of why they are needy -- fuels the unjust and puzzling sympathy for Hamas we are seeing today. Schwartz ends his piece with a quote from someone who has been undeterred by Palestinian barbarism from Day 1:A New York Times article quotes an Atlanta schoolteacher's Facebook message, shortly after October 7, in which she explains her unqualified backing of the Palestinians against Israel: "The actual history of this situation is NOT COMPLICATED. I will ALWAYS stand beside those with less power. Less wealth, less access and resources and choices. Regardless of the extreme acts of a few militants who were done watching their people slowly die." This is the consistent implementation of the "tyranny of need." But there is no reason to accept another's need as a moral claim against you. The only valid moral imperative here is the imperative of justice -- the justice of supporting the innocent and condemning the guilty. And the only way to prevent suffering by the innocent is for Israel to do whatever is necessary to destroy Hamas and for Gaza (and the rest of the Palestinians) to be ruled by a government that recognizes the rights of its own citizens and of its neighbors. [link in original]Incidentally, tyranny of need Schwartz describes, explains many other aspects of the decades-old conflict between Israel and the "Palestinians," as well as other unjust policies that people accept because they confuse altruism with benevolence. 2. At Thinking Directions, Jean Moroney argues that, while it may be tempting (or even sometimes helpful) to call failure by another name, it is much more powerful to acknowledge it and put it into a broader perspective:At one point, Jean Moroney suggests finding humor in failure. One might find this image helpful in remembering to do that. (Image by Mick Haupt, via Unsplash, license.)ometimes, thinking of a failure as a setback is counterproductive. If you review the setback and see no new information revealed, you are likely to conclude "the plan should have worked!" or "I just didn't try hard enough!" Then you will be tempted to just try the same approach, unchanged. They say insanity is trying the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. This is the moment when you really need the word "failure." Your plan FAILED! This is REAL! This is new information! Your plan is a plan that leads to FAILURE! Fully accepting this fact, including the implication that your plan has a fatal flaw in it, is critical to your eventual success. You need to see that you must have made a mistake somewhere. That's what gets you to step back and look for where you made a mistake.Notice that last sentence: The goal, or some part of it, or something very like it is probably still salvageable. Moroney later explores when a failure is significant, and suggests an approach to goal-setting that can inoculate against some of the more unpleasant conclusions and emotions that many people wrongly associate with failure. 3. At How to Be Profitable and Moral, Jaana Woiceshyn calls for an end to the anti-freedom "equity" agenda:Canada is a clear illustration. Under the current government since 2015 economic freedom has declined. Investment has been fleeing the country, weakening the dollar, and increasing inflation. Consequently, productivity and economic growth have stagnated and job growth has stalled, keeping wages low and prices high. Not only investments but skilled workers are leaving Canada, most of them for the United Sates, where salaries are much higher (46% higher in the technology sector, according to a recent survey) and taxes lower. Those departing increasingly include recent immigrants disillusioned by the high cost of living, limited job opportunities, and comparatively low salaries. [links omitted]The fact that people are (currently) fleeing Canada for the United States does not, of course, mean that the same folly will work here. 4. At Value for Value, Harry Binswanger asks questions about a few "Unnoticed Contradictions," among them:We constantly hear that man can know nothing for certain, that truth is relative to the individual, that observations are "theory-laden" so cannot claim to be objective, that no scientific claim can be proved true, that we can say only it hasn't been refuted by the data so far. At the same time and from the same people, we hear that catastrophic climate change is beyond doubt, that those who question it are "deniers" who should be kicked out of any position of consequence. How does the same mind hold, "Nothing is certain" and "Climate catastrophe is certain"?The obviousness of such questions, along with the fact that most will probably not have seen them raised anywhere else should alarm anyone. -- CAVLink to Original

6 Author Posted Tuesday at 07:09 PM Hello everyone. I know it sounds ridiculous but hear me me out if you will. How does Objectivism counter the proposition that existence is meaningless as an axiom. We know that it must be implicit in sense perception. We know existence cannot be derived from being the opposite of non-existence. Non-existence does not exist metaphysically, only epistemologically. We know existence can't be derived from being the opposite of mental delusion. Even the mind and everything in it exists. That is the question of reality in contrast to mind. We know existence can't be defined as it is a metaphysical primary. So where is it in sense perception? What makes it meaningful? I want to understand but I can't seem to answer it. From the OP , asking for explicit formulation of the ineffable, and me suggesting that a formulation will not be satisfactory unless the self is recognized as part of the ‘make up’ of the external world even when trying articulate a separation.

Vegetative Robots and Value *

Tomorrow – Kissing Robots? Beyond Tomorrow – French-Kissing Robots? At present talking robots engage jaw motions only. Hu sees the need to get robots to use lips as well if a human is to retain interest.

My position on this matter is identical to all of ARI's positions in every respect. And not because they said it but because I completely agree with everything that they have released and there is a ton of content on this subject released from them that goes explicitly into each position and issue involved. I'm not going to go over every aspect of every issue here which is what this would require from innocents in war, the history of the situation, what Justice requires, the list is endless and I know how the discussions on this forum on an issue like this goes with context constantly dropped (not accusing you of that) and random questions thrown out. ARI's many analysis videos and commentary on this subject from the very start of this context (and really since 9/11) match my own with me having arrived at the same conclusions for the same reasons but they answer everything explicitly and in the detail I wouldn't want to personally attempt here. But will state being against those supporting and/or engaging in terrorism is not in any way equivalent to being against any true innocents involved in the conflict (or any conflict for that matter). I just see zero reason to reargue what has been essentially near perfectly argued by them here and in this sort of an environment where I can predict how this sort of conversation will go and mostly by which members. There is no point in rearguing and explaining what is done over and over again in elegant manner by ARI and is freely available to all in this format which quickly becomes a crapshoot of essentially randomly thrown out questions when every question, answer, explanation, and moral principle is covered in that manner. I don't have the time or energy to do that here versus hostile individuals or groups and refer them to that mass of content that made every argument while covering essentially every possible objection already perfectly.

I'm familiar with that usage. We can can find very many such examples out there, indeed we can say that the writings of Ayn Rand are implicit in the grammar of English, and the writings of Immanuel Kant are implicit in the grammar of English. “…all arithmetic and all geometry are in us virtually, so that we can find them there if we consider attentively and set in order what we already have in the mind,” “Thus it is that ideas and truths are for us innate, as inclinations, dispositions, habits, or natural potentialities, and not as actions; although these potentialities are always accompanied by some actions, often insensible, which correspond to them” (Leibniz New Essays). The problem is that I find this to be an abuse of the meaning of "implicit", one that we find very common in social contract style ethical discussions which invoke the notion of "implied consent". Rather than say that all knowledge is implicit in the faculty of reason, we should say that all knowledge is created by using the faculty of reason. We can likewise arrive at valid concepts by contemplating the import of walking into walls for the concept of “solidity”. It is not valid to say that the concept of existence exclusively derives from sense perception: obviously, there is more to conceptualization that simple sense perception. Invoking the implicit obscures an important question: how exactly does one create or validate a concept? Stating the logical hierarchy is not the same as explaining the epistemological process of invention / discovery.

I fail to see why "implications" are not recognized around here. The slogan ~implies~ murderous intent. A free Palestine implies an UN-free Israel.

Not often I quote Hillary... but, yeah, she's right, Palestine could have maybe turned out well if Arafat implemented that 96% sovereignty deal in the West Bank which Israel offered. 96% was an excellent offer. Israel always looked for peace. The PA/PLO, as "rejectionist" as ever. Apparently they wanted all of Israel then, and they want it all now. Free Palestine!! Right. They wish for the entire territory for "Free". Hillary Clinton slams anti-Israel protests on college campuses, says students have been fed propaganda By Jacob Magid Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton tears into the pro-Palestinian protest movement that has swept across American colleges, calling them ignorant and lamenting that they’re being misinformed by propaganda on social media and in the classroom. “I have had many conversations with a lot of young people over the last many months. They don’t know very much at all about the history of the Middle East or frankly about history in many areas of the world, including in our own country,” Clinton tells MSNBC’s Morning Joe. “With respect to the Middle East, they don’t know that under the bringing together of the Israelis and the Palestinians by my husband — then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the then-head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization Yasser Arafat — an offer was made to the Palestinians for a state on 96% of the existing territory occupied by the Palestinians with 4% of Israel to be given to reach 100% of the amount of territory that was hoped for.” “This offer was made and if Yasser Arafat had accepted it there would have been a Palestinian state now for about 24 years. It’s one of the great tragedies of history that he was unable to say, ‘yes,'” Clinton laments.

Taking positions about a war always amounts to supporting the killing of someone. "Free Palestine!" is not taking positions about a war, because: "Free Palestine!" means suppressing an occupation, The current war is the one between Gaza government and Israel. During this war no occupation took place. Therefore "Free Palestine!" does not mean taking positions about a war. Your comment tries to whitewash SpookyKitty's "Free Palestine!" call, which is a call for murder, a call for genocide, more precisely. There exist, however, also a legitimate call "Free Palestine!".

I tend to side with the Israelis because they at least have a secular, pro-laissez-faire element, whereas the Palestinians have no such thing and want to establish an Islamic dictatorship. The political Left commonly thinks that crime is "justice" and actual justice is a crime; they treat business owners in the cities the same way they treat Israel. The Left also favors policies that encourage the use of human shields.

I've noticed your soft opinions on the PA, whose Palestinians I'd inform you have been polled recently to be heavily in favor of Hamas' actions in October. Have you not heard of Abbas' "pay for slay" program? It is not new. Murder civilian Jews or soldiers/policemen and go to prison - or best, be killed while being arrested, and your family receives cash benefits on a sliding scale. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://emetonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Pay4Slay_Fact-Sheet-FINAL.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjCouzm3oGGAxUvRvEDHfo9CYMQFnoECBIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw24sCFxIU0yLh396ZYsTgz7

Taking positions about a war always amounts to supporting the killing of someone. The entire thread is practically a demonstration in discourse that is not rational in any sense. I don't participate in this thread precisely because no one seems actually interested in figuring anything out. But there is at least a semblance of discourse, even if it goes nowhere.

Of course it is, don't allow them to be in any doubt. "Free Palestine" = "kill Israelis" (Or "Zionists" as such people try to hide behind.) They are either: a. useful idiots or b. complicit in an intended mass murder. And no other option. I am pleased to see you get to the core, however.

From a post I wrote at OL. "Hamas' political arm knows its audience. Capture hostages, commit murderous attacks. The threefold plan: 1. they know the Israelis are guaranteed to come in hard to rescue hostages. Good. The trap is set. 2. the hostages serve as protective shields 3. hostages can be negotiated as leverage for a ceasefire. Objective achieved: Plenty of their own Gazan civilians die and the world turns on Israel and pulls support, and they buy time to reorganize, re-equip and to do it again. I've seen it all before. I could not read much of Mr Unz's sophistry and inversions. Don't misunderstand these folk, they delight in seeing Israelis killed, the country brought low, and even eradicated as Hamas promises".

So, you are incapable of justifying any of your claims; in other words, you know nothing about the subject. Furthermore, you deny that it is your duty to justify your claims. I will report you—again!—to the moderators for not abiding by the rules of rational debate. Additionally, I will ask them to take a stance towards your "Free Palestine!" statement, which I consider a call for murder. @Pokyt @Eiuol @William O

So stop trying to simplify it. Post something and expand on it, get into the complexities.

Did you actually watch the video because that is not the argument at all, it is both much more complex and much simpler in other ways.

indeed, we definitely should completely ignore that Hamas and Palestine are different things, any support of Palestine is inherently support of Hamas. Palestine is obviously the same as Hamas. After all, it's easier to be a tribalist. If you don't support Israel, then you are part of the evil tribe. Very simple, reason not required.

David, in some usages of "implicit knowledge", there is nothing mystical or magical. There is a sense of implicit useful in cognitive-development research literature (viz., Gelman and Meck 1983, 344). The child is said to have implicit knowledge of the counting principles if she engages in behavior that is systematically governed by those principles, even though she cannot state them. The child has gone far beyond learning first words (roughly months 12 to 18) by the time she is learning to count. By 30 months, the basic linguistic system has become established and is fairly stable (Nelson 1996, 106). Not until around 36 months or beyond does the child have an implicit grasp of the elementary principles of counting: assign one-label-for-one-item, keep stable the order of number labels recited, assign final recited number as the number of items in the counted collection, realize that any sort of items can be counted, and realize that the order in which the items are counted is irrelevant (Gelman and Meck 1983; Butterworth 1999, 109–16). Gelman and Meck liken this implicitness of the counting principles at this stage of cognitive development to the way in which we are able to conform to certain rules of syntax when speaking correctly without being able to state those rules. That much seems right, but there is a further distinction I should make. The child’s implicit counting principles are being learned (and taught) as an integral part of learning to properly count aggregations explicitly, expressly. In contrast, we can (or anyway, my preliterate Choctaw ancestors centuries past could) live out our lives, speaking fine in our mother tongue, following right rules of syntax, yet without being able to state those rules; indeed, without even knowing any of the terminology of syntax. Our learning of tacit rules of syntax is not for the sake of becoming able to follow them explicitly, only tacitly. Another sense of implicit is in more common use. That is the logicomathematical sense. It is in that sense that we say a certain theorem is implicit in a set of axioms; Hertz’ wave equation for propagation of electromagnetic radiation is implicit in Maxwell’s field equations; an inverse-cube central force law is implicit in a spiral orbit; dimension reductions are implicit in Kolmogorov superposition-based neural networks; certain measure relations are implicit in any similarity discerned in perception; or certain measure relations are implicit in a concept class. Cf. Rand (1969, 159–62); Campbell (2002, 294–96, 300–10); Boydstun (1996, 201–2). In addition to using "implicit" in her theory of the genesis of measurements-omitted concepts (which I suppose for the concept existence requires suspension of particular measure-values along all the measure-dimensions possessed by all the kinds of existents there are), Rand used "implicit" in describing a cognitive growth in our infant comprehension from existence to identity to unit.* References Boydstun, Stephen. 1996. Volitional synapses (Part 3). Objectivity 2(4):183–204. Butterworth, Brian. 1999. What Counts: How Every Brain is Hardwired for Math. New York: Free Press. Campbell, Robert L. 2002. Goals, values, and the implicit: Explorations in psychological ontology. Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. 3(2):289–327. Gelman, Rochel, and Elizabeth Meck. 1983. Preschoolers’ counting: Principles before skill. Cognition 13:343–59. Nelson, Katherine. 1996. Language in Cognitive Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rand, Ayn. [1969] 1990. Transcripts from Ayn Rand’s epistemology seminar. Edited by L. Peikoff and H. Binswanger. Appendix to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Expanded 2nd edition. New York: Meridian.

My point is that what you are talking about isn’t knowledge, it is potential knowledge. You might say that some people have that knowledge and others should get their act together to actually have it, and pursuing philosophical discussions here is one way to gain such knowledge. The central question in this thread is about knowledge (not metaphysics), and specifically about validating knowledge. I’m not objecting to your mode of expression, I’m objecting to what seems to be your idea, that people have “implicit knowledge”, knowledge that is not chosen. As I noted, knowledge of personal experience via senses is automatic (indeed, axiomatic), but conceptual knowledge is not automatic. Applied to abstract concept like “entity” or “existence”, you cannot automatically know these concepts. But you can discover them by applying reason to the axiomatic, such as the sensation of bumping into a door jam. Can discover, potentially, if you choose to. Until you do, you do not have a concept “existence”, you just have sensory knowledge that you heard a word “existence”. Before getting to the proper concept of “existence”, you might mistakenly think that delusions, contradictions and God do not exist. They do, as mental states, not a real things. Mental things exist, a fact that eludes many people. Which is why discussion of bare existence without including discussion of identity is a shortcut to intellectual hell.

So I should have said passive acceptance or recognition? ( I didn't use the word knowledge, so a little confused as to your point)

This answers all of the nonsense stated here accurately. And no, I won't be responding to those who promote it and evil. https://newideal.aynrand.org/hamas-and-the-tyranny-of-need/

“Implicit knowledge” is a form of mysticism, based on a premise of a magical automatic reason machine in the human mind. Only a very small amount of one’s knowledge is automatic, namely if you sense something, you have that concrete perceptual knowledge of an event for instance that you cut yourself or that the phone rang. You do not automatically gain high level conceptual knowledge explaining the causal relationship between the sharp object slicing your skin and the sensation that follows, even though that knowledge is “implicit” in cutting yourself. Knowledge must be chosen, it is not handed to you by a brain homunculus. One of the small set of things that are legitimate automatic knowledge – things that you sense and that you register the fact of sensing – is basic words in your language. All people who speak English know that there is a word pronounced “person” because they have experienced it. Most people do not know that there is a word pronounced “zymurgy” because they have never experienced it. Most people probably know that there exists a word pronounced “existence”, and most people likely have an arbitrary incorrect definition of the word. Having a concept means having the unification of units subsumed under the label “person” or “existence”. One has the potential to explicitly validate the concept of existence through experience, but the potential and the actual are not the same. If you haven’t validated the concept, the concept isn’t validated. There may be some confusion over the proper limits on "implicit" knowledge, which relates to a person supplying actual knowledge that is not explicitly stated. If I tell you that you can use my hammer, I probably don't explicitly say that you have to return it in a short time, than you cannot destroy it, that you cannot hit me with it – these are implicit facts about what I say or would have said. This is what "context" is about. You don't have to explicitly state everything when you are communicating with someone, you don't have to announce your definition of "hammer", and so on. You may assume that your interlocutor shares with you a concept of "existence", or "rights", but as we know, the number of people who correctly grasp the concepts of "rights" is way smaller than the set of people who wield the word.

Over at Astral Codex Ten, whose author is a mental health professional, is a very interesting description of the unintended consequences of a seemingly benign government regulation. Let's first consider the intent:Image by joandcindy, via Wikimedia Commons, license.Sometimes places ban or restrict animals. For example, an apartment building might not allow dogs. Or an airline might charge you money to transport your cat. But the law requires them to allow service animals, for example guide dogs for the blind. A newer law also requires some of these places to allow emotional support animals, ie animals that help people with mental health problems like depression or anxiety. So for example, if you're depressed, but having your dog nearby makes you feel better, then a landlord has to let you keep your dog in the apartment. Or if you're anxious, but petting your cat calms you down, then an airline has to take your cat free of charge. Clinically and scientifically, this is great. Many studies show that pets help people with mental health problems. Depressed people really do benefit from a dog who loves them. Anxious people really do feel calmer when they hold a cute kitten. So far, so good. Who would want to deprive an anxious or depressed person of such an unintrusive and simple aid as having a pet around while they navigate their lives en route to recovery? I will not beat up the author for failing to ask the following question: What is the best way to help people who actually need emotional support animals? He simply goes with the flow on this one: Like practically everyone else these days, he assumes that the government should decide who gets an emotional support animal. Period. In every single circumstance it might come up. The American regulatory state has been omnipresent for so long that very few people can even imagine any other way to tackle a problem like this. For most people, the only tool to solve a problem where the needs and desires of different people conflict is to enact a new government regulation. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The hammer here looks reasonable enough: To get your pet into places that might no want it there, all you need is a letter to the effect that you need an emotional support animal from a mental health professional. But who wields the hammer? Or: What sort of unintended consequences follow?But the process runs into the same failure mode as Adderall prescriptions: it combines an insistence on gatekeepers with a total lack of interest over whether they actually gatekeep. The end result is a gatekeeping cargo cult, where you have to go through the (expensive, exhausting) motions of asking someone's permission, without the process really filtering out good from bad applicants. And the end result of that is a disguised class system, where anyone rich and savvy enough to engage with the gatekeeping process gets extra rights, but anyone too poor or naive to access it has to play by the normal, punishingly-restrictive rules. I have no solution to this, I just feel like I incur a little spiritual damage every time I approve somebody's ADHD snake or autism iguana or anorexia pangolin or whatever. [bold added, link omitted]The problem is named in plain sight within a sample letter from a mill that people who want to carry pets around everywhere can use to get a letter:[NAME OF TENANT] is my patient, and has been under my care since [DATE]. I am intimately familiar with his/her history and with the functional limitations imposed by his/her disability. He/She meets the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.The three laws named at the end violate the property rights and right to contract of landlords, employers, and businessmen who may not wish to deal with pets brought onto their property by random members of the general public. That is their first sin, and why they shouldn't be on the books in the first place. A side effect of these laws is that they greatly increase the number of "service animals" people might wish to bring with them to the point that there is a cottage industry of people willing to help people get away with whatever they want -- people with legitimate needs for service animals and people with good reasons not to have pets on their property alike be damned. Now, we are far from a time when such laws can get repealed, but let's indulge the fantasy and consider how we might solve the problem of, say, a business that wants to accommodate customers who really do need a service animal. Make them, if the owner produces a magical scrap of paper isn't the answer. Businesses would be free to employ any of the following means from the below non-exhaustive list:Personal judgement by a proprietor on a case-by-case basis;Consulting a mental health professional of its own choosing whenever the matter comes up;Accepting a certificate from an authority of its own choosing as to the safety and suitability of the animal.Just as there are non-governmental standards bodies for engineers, or for dog breeders, there can be for service animal certification. These private-enterprise solutions work because they protect the ability of the people who use them to make a living in a free market. That is, they align self-interest with quality through the metric of honest profit -- which is surely how, over thousands of years, people have worked out which breeds of dog are best suited to help the blind, and how to train them. In other words, rather than a cottage industry of con men, we'd have a legitimate industry of people helping make (actual) service animals work well for as many people as possible. A private certification system would work, because businesses would be free to work with those who don't, say, foist snakes on their customers (as happens now) -- or even simply refuse to do business with people who bring animals to their place of business. The kind of charlatans who operate now would go out of business, and there would be a proper incentive for psychologists whose patients want a letter to give an honest appraisal or a real referral. As it is now, on top of the widespread violations of rights we have now, observe that some of the people who need these animals can't have them, and some who just want to bring an animal with them everywhere they go get to do this. -- CAVLink to Original

Is that quote not saying that life is the standard? Or are you underscoring the "man" part? I've always taken that emphasis to be qualifying the means to life rather than life as an end. So, survival as the end, with reason as the uniquely human means. Honestly, I can't keep all the terms straight -- life, survival, life qua man, happiness, standard, end, purpose.